Tag Archives: I need help with my postal disability claim

I am still often asked about whether or not, or how helpful, legal representation would be in a Federal or Postal Disability Retirement case. To ask an attorney such a question is often unhelpful, for there is always the question as to how much “self-interest” an attorney has in answering such a question.

What I can state, however, is the following: Remember that everyone believes that his or her case is a “sure thing” — this is natural, because the very individual who is filing for disability retirement is the one who is suffering from the medical condition, and so it is a very “personal” matter, and a sense of objectivity is difficult to maintain in these matters.

Second, remember that when you hire an attorney, you are not just hiring someone who “knows something” about FERS & CSRS disability retirement; instead, you should be hiring that lawyer for his or her reputation, his knowledge of the administrative & legal process with the Office of Personnel Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board, and how well he is “thought of” by OPM (i.e., how long has he been practicing in the field of Federal Disability Retirement law, does he know the people at OPM, and more importantly, does OPM know him/her?).

Finally, always keep in mind that, while attorneys can be expensive, you must always do a cost-benefits analysis, and look at the benefit you will be receiving (or not receiving) if you do or do not hire an attorney. Disability retirement benefits are essentially a means of securing one’s financial future, and as such, the benefit to be secured is important enough to consider hiring an attorney.

The Applicant’s Statement of Disability should be specifically tailored to encompass and embrace the particular type of medical condition, the unique symptoms which result from the specific medical condition, a factual delineation of the type of daily, essential elements of the particular type of job one engages in, and the impact of each to all. The “creativity” of writing comes into play, not in terms of “storytelling creativity” (although the applicant’s statement must always have an element of storytelling), but rather a compelling description of the “human story” — the story of the individual who is suffering from the particular medical condition, combined with the workplace impact and peppered with the emotional toll of the human condition. It should never be voluminous — for length should never replace a concise story; it should never be a stream of consciousness — for the human story should always be factual and reasoned; and it should never be a ranting bundle of emotionalism — for the true story of a medical condition upon a human life should entail a medical delineation, along with a detached, but personal, account of the person’s statement of impact. Such a balanced story needs to be told well, and it needs to be compelling.

It is, indeed, frustrating when a governmental agency makes life-impacting decisions which seem to be spurious and capricious. A review of a disability retirement application by the Office of Personnel Management is supposed to be thorough, with sound reasoning and a fair application of the law. And, in all fairness, the majority of cases appear to meet that standard. It may well be, of course, that since all approval letters of disability retirement applications are standard templates, with boilerplate language and instructions, and since most of my cases are approved at the first level, the impression left is that OPM does a good job in reviewing the cases.

When a case is disapproved, however, it is often the case that the denial is based upon factors which defy logic, which appear to have little or no rational basis, and which selectively focuses upon a narrow reading of the medical reports and records. Thus, often the OPM Representative will take a statement out of context, and declare that the doctor stated X when a full reading of the medical report shows that the doctor actually stated Y. This is unfortunate, and does not reflect the careful review, analysis, and fair rendering of a decision made by most OPM representatives, but occurs often enough to be of concern. On the bright side, however, is that there is always the ability to take it completely out of the hands of OPM, after a second denial — and allow an administrative judge to review it objectively, at the Merit Systems Protection Board. That is why the MSPB was created and exists — to have a third party, objective body review the decision-making process of the Office of Personnel Management.

My approach to Federal Disability Retirement law is that there are very few, if any, mistakes made by the applicant which cannot be corrected, amended, or explained, especially where the essential ingredients of a “good” case are in existence: a supportive doctor; a position/duties which are incompatible with the type of medical conditions one suffers from, etc.

However, I receive telephone calls periodically where the individual simply has waited “too long”. Thus, to clarify: If you’ve been denied twice by the Office of Personnel Management, and you have a Hearing before an Administrative Judge 3 days from today, then you have probably “waited too long” (although, if you can get a postponement, or suspension of the case, there may still be time).

If you’ve been denied by OPM and the Merit Systems Protection Board has already denied your case, then you have probably “waited too long”. Or, if you have been denied by OPM and by the MSPB and by the Full Board, then you have probably “waited too long”. I hope that I am getting the point across by overstating the case — while each individual must decided when it is the “right time” to get a lawyer to help in filing for disability retirement cases, and yes, while I take on cases at all stages of the process, the point is quite simple: It is better to have the expertise of an experienced attorney earlier, than later. In most case, that means at the very beginning of the process.

Whether an attorney is necessary at the initial stages of filing for OPM Disability Retirement is a question which each individual must answer. One thing is clear, however; there are very few cases where a disability retirement application is “clear-cut” based upon the medical evidence. The reviewing personnel at the Office of Personnel Management are not doctors — though they have a “contract doctor” to review applications.

It is the job of an attorney to be the advocate for the client; as such, the tools which the attorney utilize are: words, and the power of words. In taking over cases at the Reconsideration Stage, or the Merit Systems Protection Board, the mistakes that I see which clients have made prior to representation always involve ‘words’ — either too much, or too few, or stated in the wrong way, or not at all.

Verbosity is rarely an asset or advantage; being succinct is almost always the better way; wise choice of words is a must; the order of delineating the medical disabilities, creating the nexus between the medical disability and the inability to perform one’s job — all of those must be stated forthrightly, descriptively, and with a touch of creativity. Sincerely, Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Search this OPM Medical Retirement website

Search

Blogroll

Attorney Profile @ Lawyers.com
The attorney profile of Robert R. McGill, who specializes 100% of his time on Federal Retirement cases only. This page has more information about the law firm, client reviews and other important information.

Federal Disability Retirement Home Page
The home page of Attorney Robert R. McGill, with more medical administrative retirement articles, annuity calculators, statutory and evolving case laws, contact information and much more.